Today nuclear power plants produce 93% of the clean energy in Pennsylvania, and because they aren’t valued for their clean power contributions, they are at high risk of closing due to economic pressures. As reactor closures in other states have shown, they will be replaced mostly by CO2-emitting gas generation. To prevent this, we urge you to support the bill to revise the state’s 2004 Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act to include all non-CO2-emitting sources. As each of these nuclear plants employ several hundred people, closure of those plants would result in the loss of thousands of high-paying jobs throughout Pennsylvania. It would also result in increased air pollution (social cost of $260 million per year), a dramatic loss of tax revenue in local communities around the plants (net loss of $69 million annually), and may expose Pennsylvanians to higher power costs in the future, as shown by a recent Brattle Group study. With respect to global warming, closure of the PA nuclear plants would more than offset the benefits of all the solar and wind generation built to date in the entire Mid-Atlantic region. If the state’s nuclear plants close to save a few pennies with natural gas generation in the short-term, it will significantly increase the cost of meeting Governor Wolf’s stated goal of reducing state CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. An enormous amount of time, effort, and money would have to be spent building new low carbon resources just to get back to where we were before the plants closed. The planet cannot afford such a waste of time and effort, and new renewable generation should be used to replace fossil generation, not other forms of low-carbon energy like nuclear. The case for keeping these plants open has been eloquently made by influential writers and organizations who historically haven’t been that friendly to nuclear, including the Union of Concerned Scientists. Unfortunately, PA has no policy that supports continued nuclear plant operation (like those in NY, IL, NJ and CT). In fact, the burning of garbage is currently a part of the AEPS, while nuclear is excluded. As your constituent, I hope you will consider these points and support reforming the AEPS to include nuclear power. Our environment and economy depend on it.

Today nuclear power plants produce 93% of the clean energy in Pennsylvania, and because they aren’t valued for their clean power contributions, they are at high risk of closing due to economic pressures. As reactor closures in other states have shown, they will be replaced mostly by CO2-emitting gas generation. To prevent this, we urge you to support the bill to revise the state’s 2004 Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act to include all non-CO2-emitting sources. As each of these nuclear plants employ several hundred people, closure of those plants would result in the loss of thousands of high-paying jobs throughout Pennsylvania. It would also result in increased air pollution (social cost of $260 million per year), a dramatic loss of tax revenue in local communities around the plants (net loss of $69 million annually), and may expose Pennsylvanians to higher power costs in the future, as shown by a recent Brattle Group study. With respect to global warming, closure of the PA nuclear plants would more than offset the benefits of all the solar and wind generation built to date in the entire Mid-Atlantic region. If the state’s nuclear plants close to save a few pennies with natural gas generation in the short-term, it will significantly increase the cost of meeting Governor Wolf’s stated goal of reducing state CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. An enormous amount of time, effort, and money would have to be spent building new low carbon resources just to get back to where we were before the plants closed. The planet cannot afford such a waste of time and effort, and new renewable generation should be used to replace fossil generation, not other forms of low-carbon energy like nuclear. The case for keeping these plants open has been eloquently made by influential writers and organizations who historically haven’t been that friendly to nuclear, including the Union of Concerned Scientists. Unfortunately, PA has no policy that supports continued nuclear plant operation (like those in NY, IL, NJ and CT). In fact, the burning of garbage is currently a part of the AEPS, while nuclear is excluded. As your constituent, I hope you will consider these points and support reforming the AEPS to include nuclear power. Our environment and economy depend on it.

Today nuclear power plants produce 93% of the clean energy in Pennsylvania, and because they aren’t valued for their clean power contributions, they are at high risk of closing due to economic pressures. As reactor closures in other states have shown, they will be replaced mostly by CO2-emitting gas generation. To prevent this, we urge you to support the bill to revise the state’s 2004 Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act to include all non-CO2-emitting sources. As each of these nuclear plants employ several hundred people, closure of those plants would result in the loss of thousands of high-paying jobs throughout Pennsylvania. It would also result in increased air pollution (social cost of $260 million per year), a dramatic loss of tax revenue in local communities around the plants (net loss of $69 million annually), and may expose Pennsylvanians to higher power costs in the future, as shown by a recent Brattle Group study. With respect to global warming, closure of the PA nuclear plants would more than offset the benefits of all the solar and wind generation built to date in the entire Mid-Atlantic region. If the state’s nuclear plants close to save a few pennies with natural gas generation in the short-term, it will significantly increase the cost of meeting Governor Wolf’s stated goal of reducing state CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. An enormous amount of time, effort, and money would have to be spent building new low carbon resources just to get back to where we were before the plants closed. The planet cannot afford such a waste of time and effort, and new renewable generation should be used to replace fossil generation, not other forms of low-carbon energy like nuclear. The case for keeping these plants open has been eloquently made by influential writers and organizations who historically haven’t been that friendly to nuclear, including the Union of Concerned Scientists. Unfortunately, PA has no policy that supports continued nuclear plant operation (like those in NY, IL, NJ and CT). In fact, the burning of garbage is currently a part of the AEPS, while nuclear is excluded. As your constituent, I hope you will consider these points and support reforming the AEPS to include nuclear power. Our environment and economy depend on it.

Today nuclear power plants produce 93% of the clean energy in Pennsylvania, and because they aren’t valued for their clean power contributions, they are at high risk of closing due to economic pressures. As reactor closures in other states have shown, they will be replaced mostly by CO2-emitting gas generation. To prevent this, we urge you to support the bill to revise the state’s 2004 Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act to include all non-CO2-emitting sources. As each of these nuclear plants employ several hundred people, closure of those plants would result in the loss of thousands of high-paying jobs throughout Pennsylvania. It would also result in increased air pollution (social cost of $260 million per year), a dramatic loss of tax revenue in local communities around the plants (net loss of $69 million annually), and may expose Pennsylvanians to higher power costs in the future, as shown by a recent Brattle Group study. With respect to global warming, closure of the PA nuclear plants would more than offset the benefits of all the solar and wind generation built to date in the entire Mid-Atlantic region. If the state’s nuclear plants close to save a few pennies with natural gas generation in the short-term, it will significantly increase the cost of meeting Governor Wolf’s stated goal of reducing state CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. An enormous amount of time, effort, and money would have to be spent building new low carbon resources just to get back to where we were before the plants closed. The planet cannot afford such a waste of time and effort, and new renewable generation should be used to replace fossil generation, not other forms of low-carbon energy like nuclear. The case for keeping these plants open has been eloquently made by influential writers and organizations who historically haven’t been that friendly to nuclear, including the Union of Concerned Scientists. Unfortunately, PA has no policy that supports continued nuclear plant operation (like those in NY, IL, NJ and CT). In fact, the burning of garbage is currently a part of the AEPS, while nuclear is excluded. As your constituent, I hope you will consider these points and support reforming the AEPS to include nuclear power. Our environment and economy depend on it.

Today nuclear power plants produce 93% of the clean energy in Pennsylvania, and because they aren’t valued for their clean power contributions, they are at high risk of closing due to economic pressures. As reactor closures in other states have shown, they will be replaced mostly by CO2-emitting gas generation. To prevent this, we urge you to support the bill to revise the state’s 2004 Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act to include all non-CO2-emitting sources. As each of these nuclear plants employ several hundred people, closure of those plants would result in the loss of thousands of high-paying jobs throughout Pennsylvania. It would also result in increased air pollution (social cost of $260 million per year), a dramatic loss of tax revenue in local communities around the plants (net loss of $69 million annually), and may expose Pennsylvanians to higher power costs in the future, as shown by a recent Brattle Group study. With respect to global warming, closure of the PA nuclear plants would more than offset the benefits of all the solar and wind generation built to date in the entire Mid-Atlantic region. If the state’s nuclear plants close to save a few pennies with natural gas generation in the short-term, it will significantly increase the cost of meeting Governor Wolf’s stated goal of reducing state CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. An enormous amount of time, effort, and money would have to be spent building new low carbon resources just to get back to where we were before the plants closed. The planet cannot afford such a waste of time and effort, and new renewable generation should be used to replace fossil generation, not other forms of low-carbon energy like nuclear. The case for keeping these plants open has been eloquently made by influential writers and organizations who historically haven’t been that friendly to nuclear, including the Union of Concerned Scientists. Unfortunately, PA has no policy that supports continued nuclear plant operation (like those in NY, IL, NJ and CT). In fact, the burning of garbage is currently a part of the AEPS, while nuclear is excluded. As your constituent, I hope you will consider these points and support reforming the AEPS to include nuclear power. Our environment and economy depend on it.

Today nuclear power plants produce 93% of the clean energy in Pennsylvania, and because they aren’t valued for their clean power contributions, they are at high risk of closing due to economic pressures. As reactor closures in other states have shown, they will be replaced mostly by CO2-emitting gas generation. To prevent this, we urge you to support the bill to revise the state’s 2004 Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act to include all non-CO2-emitting sources. As each of these nuclear plants employ several hundred people, closure of those plants would result in the loss of thousands of high-paying jobs throughout Pennsylvania. It would also result in increased air pollution (social cost of $260 million per year), a dramatic loss of tax revenue in local communities around the plants (net loss of $69 million annually), and may expose Pennsylvanians to higher power costs in the future, as shown by a recent Brattle Group study. With respect to global warming, closure of the PA nuclear plants would more than offset the benefits of all the solar and wind generation built to date in the entire Mid-Atlantic region. If the state’s nuclear plants close to save a few pennies with natural gas generation in the short-term, it will significantly increase the cost of meeting Governor Wolf’s stated goal of reducing state CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. An enormous amount of time, effort, and money would have to be spent building new low carbon resources just to get back to where we were before the plants closed. The planet cannot afford such a waste of time and effort, and new renewable generation should be used to replace fossil generation, not other forms of low-carbon energy like nuclear. The case for keeping these plants open has been eloquently made by influential writers and organizations who historically haven’t been that friendly to nuclear, including the Union of Concerned Scientists. Unfortunately, PA has no policy that supports continued nuclear plant operation (like those in NY, IL, NJ and CT). In fact, the burning of garbage is currently a part of the AEPS, while nuclear is excluded. As your constituent, I hope you will consider these points and support reforming the AEPS to include nuclear power. Our environment and economy depend on it.